A Bad Copyright Bill Moves Forward With No Serious Understanding of Its Dangers

a-bad-copyright-bill-moves-forward-with-no-serious-understanding-of-its-dangers

19-07-19 07:58:00,

By Katharine Trendacosta

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act, aka the CASE Act. This was without any hearings for experts to explain the huge flaws in the bill as it’s currently written. And flaws there are.

We’ve seen some version of the CASE Act pop up for years now, and the problems with the bill have never been addressed satisfactorily. This is still a bill that puts people in danger of huge, unappealable money judgments from a quasi-judicial system—not an actual court—for the kind of Internet behavior that most people engage in without thinking.

During the vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was once again stressed that the CASE Act—which would turn the Copyright Office into a copyright traffic court—created a “voluntary” system.

“Voluntary” does not accurately describe the regime of the CASE Act. The CASE Act does allow people who receive notices from the Copyright Office to “opt-out” of the system. The average person is not really going to understand what is going on, other than that they’ve received what looks like a legal summons.

Take Action

Tell the Senate Not to Enable Copyright Trolls

Furthermore, the CASE Act gives people just 60 days from receiving the notice to opt-out, so long as they do so in writing “in accordance with regulations established by the Register of Copyrights,” which in no way promises that opting out will be a simple process, understandable to everyone. But because the system is opt-out, and the goal of the system Is presumably to move as many cases through it as possible, the Copyright Office has little incentive to make opting out fair to respondents and easy to do.

That leaves opting out as something most easily taken advantage of by companies and people who have lawyers who can advise them of the law and leaves the average Internet user at risk of having a huge judgment handed down by the Copyright Office. At first, those judgments can be up to $30,000, enough to bankrupt many people in the U.S.,

 » Lees verder

Don’t Share This! EU’s New Copyright Law Could Kill the Free Internet

Don’t Share This! EU’s New Copyright Law Could Kill the Free Internet

30-09-18 07:24:00,

“We’ll all be turned into nervous wrecks, worried that we have infringed the new laws in one way or another.”

The author is a well-known UK pundit who writes frequently on Russia.  He is currently running a crowdfunding to raise money to fund his legal costs for his court case against Oliver Kamm, a writer for the Times newspaper, who he has sued for libel and harassment. If you like this article, please consider supporting this writer. He is one of the best out there on Russia.

For more info about that see:  The Times, RT and Oliver Kamm, an Obsessed Neocon Stalker and Creepy London Times Moron Cyber-Stalks Leading UK Russia Expert (Video)

It’s basically a battle between billionaires Axel Springer SE and Google. But it is ordinary internet users who will fall victim to the EU’s new copyright law, which urgently needs modification.

It’s good to share. But the European Parliament clearly doesn’t think so. Its new copyright legislation, passed last week, clamps down quite severely on sharing things online. The dynamism of the internet is at threat. When Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, warns us of the dangers the new law poses, we should all sit up straight and pay attention.

For a start, the legislation shifts the responsibility for the uploading of copyright material to the internet platforms themselves. Beforehand it was the job of the companies who thought their copyright was infringed to do this. Many don’t bother, and are happy to see their material uploaded to sites like YouTube as they know it promotes an artist’s work and boosts sales. But all that is likely to change.

Under Article 13, platforms would have to install “upload filters”.YouTube could be shorn of much of its content. Big sites would probably survive but, as ZDNet warns here, smaller sites could easily be put out of business by “copyright trolls”.

Not that there’s anything wrong of course, with sensible protection of copyright. As a prolific five-articles-a-week writer and author I can’t tell you how frustrated and angry I feel when I see my work “pirated” by a commercial website which hasn’t even asked my permission to reprint it,

 » Lees verder

New EU Copyright Law Could Force Online Platforms To Ban Memes Across Europe

New EU Copyright Law Could Force Online Platforms To Ban Memes Across Europe

20-09-18 08:29:00,

A new law being just passed in European Parliament and in the process of becoming finalized has received scant media attention, but could be nothing short of revolutionary in terms of its lasting impact on the internet, political speech and discourse, and the potential for censorship. So far the EU is moving the law forward, but it has sparked fierce push back, as it looks likely that soon entirely legal content will be caught in the law’s dragnet. 

The law, in its full named called The European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, is intended to updated existing copyright laws for social media and the internet, but critics say it’s incredibly short sighted and creates more problems than it does solutions. At the heart of the law is Article 11, which as been dubbed the “link tax,” and Article 13, which is being called the “meme ban” due to the likely potential that internet memes could be banned across Europe. 

Whereas so far the onus has been on artists and creators to flag copyright infringements, the new EU law requires platforms like YouTube, Google, Twitter, and Facebook to be responsible for copyright violations.

This means these large platforms which host immense amounts of constantly updated images, memes, and information could be forced to require users to pass all content through an “upload filter” first which would theoretically ensure copyrighted information doesn’t make it onto the platform. 

This is where memes, which are most often created using existing official images of political figures, events, or cartoons, could be banned as they would likely be flagged by such upload filters. The intent of the law is to protect the copyrighted content of artists, photographers, companies, and individual content creators, but critics say it will change the internet and social media platforms as we known it.

According to Wired commenting on the so-called “meme ban,” or Article 13

No one can quite agree how these platforms are expected to identify and remove this content. An earlier version of the Directive referred to “proportionate content recognition technologies” which sounds an awful lot like it’s asking platform owners to use automate filters to scan every piece of upload content and stop anything that might violate copyright from being uploaded…

 » Lees verder

Copyright Update #5: Vor Entscheidung im EU-Parlament trägt Wikipedia schwarz

Copyright Update #5: Vor Entscheidung im EU-Parlament trägt Wikipedia schwarz

11-09-18 08:03:00,

Mit dem Internet wurde das Urheberrecht von einem Nischenthema zu einem relevanten Aspekt im digitalen Alltag von uns allen. Unsere Serie Copyright Update widmet sich der Debatte über dessen ausgewogene und zeitgemäße Gestaltung.


Netzpolitik.org ist unabhängig, werbefrei und fast vollständig durch unsere Leserinnen und Leser finanziert.

Eines der wichtigsten Grundprinzipien der Wikipedia ist ihr Anspruch, bei ihren Inhalten einen möglichst neutralen Standpunkt einzunehmen. Gerade bei politischen Themen führt das bisweilen zu einem intensiven Ringen, wie so ein neutraler Standpunkt aussehen könnte. Dass dieses Ringen aber transparent nachvollziehbar und zu einem immer nur vorläufigen Ergebnis führt, ist zentrales Qualitätskriterium der Wikipedia. Umso bemerkenswerter ist deshalb, wie heute Besucherinnen und Besucher der Wikipedia auf der Startseite begrüßt werden. Vor einer verdunkelten Wikipedia fordert ein großer Banner dazu auf, ihre Abgeordneten im EU-Parlament zu kontaktieren (siehe Screenshot).

Screenshot der Startseite der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia am 11. September 2018 (besucht mit deutscher IP-Adresse; Besucher mit österreichischer IP-Adresse sehen eine angepasste Version)

In einem Blogeintrag erklären Lilli Iliev und John Weitzmann von Wikimedia Deutschland die Hintergründe für die Aktion. Der Protest der Wikipedia-Community richtet sich gegen die Einführung eines neuen Leistungsschutzrechts für Presseverleger, damit Wikipedia nicht für Quellenverweise auf Presseartikel zahlungspflichtig wird, und warnt vor der Einführung einer Upload-Filterpflicht:

Für Wikipedia als Plattform ist zwar eine Ausnahme vorgesehen, aber schon für das dazugehörige Medienarchiv Wikimedia Commons ist alles andere als sicher, ob diese Ausnahme noch so weit reicht, von unzähligen Projekten außerhalb der Wikimedia-Projekte ganz zu schweigen. Wikipedia ist aber ohne ein digitales Umfeld freier und Freiwilligen-getragener Projekte nicht denkbar.

Iliev und Weitzmann verweisen in ihrem Beitrag auch darauf, dass es bislang erst einmal im Jahr 2012 einen symbolischen „Wikipedia-Blackout“ aus Protest gegen zwei US-Gesetzesvorhaben gegeben hatte. Damals war der Protest sehr erfolgreich und hatte zu einem entscheidenden Meinungsumschwung unter Kongressabgeordneten beigetragen (siehe auch Abbildung).

Kompliziertes Abstimmungsprozedere im Plenum

Ob der Protest in Europa ähnlich erfolgreich ist, wird sich morgen, Mittwoch, zeigen. Allerdings ist das Verfahren komplizierter als 2012 in den USA, da es nicht einfach nur um eine Ablehnung des gesamten Reformvorschlags sondern um konkrete Abänderungsanträge geht. Insgesamt wurden über 200 Anträge eingebracht.

 » Lees verder

Censuur door copyright en de parallelle samenleving als oplossing – Lang Leve Europa!

08-07-18 06:22:00,

Dit is een wat somber signaal, maar hier ging toch wel weer een lampje aan:

https://stichtingvaccinvrij.nl/plotseling-verdwenen-deense-documentaire-over-hpv-slachtoffers-niet-langer-te-bekijken/

Deze moeder alarmeert over het feit dat door een dubieus EU besluit/opdracht – meer vaccinaties gewenst – de mediabedrijven in Europa harder dan ooit hun copyright moeten gaan beschermen. Dat is op zichzelf geen nieuws, want met de Upload Filter en Link Tax plannen van de EU (ingegeven door de Duitse grootuitgeverij Springer) werd dat plan reeds pijnlijk duidelijk.

De Brusselse EU besluit dus ‘spontaan’ (Big Pharma Lobby) dat meer mensen gevaccineerd moeten worden en nagenoeg dezelfde dag verdwijnen video’s over de donkere kant van vaccinaties van het internet om nooit meer terug gezien te worden. De Deense publieke omroep werkt duidelijk graag mee. Bestuurlijke elite onder elkaar.

Het spreekt voor zich, eigenlijk. Het systeem wat hier nagestreefd en geïmplementeerd wordt is ‘censuur door copyright’. Als je overal copyright op hebt, en vervolgens dat copyright met harde hand kan afdwingen (en dat kan tegenwoordig), kan je altijd en overal voorkomen dat iets ongewensts uitgesproken/getoond wordt. Overal copyright afdwingen totdat alleen nog de officieel toegestane totale onzin uitgesproken kan worden. (1984 op steroïden)

Onze instituties zijn niet meer van ‘ons’

Nagenoeg alle Nederlandse publicaties (kranten, bladen, officieel nieuws, etc) zijn in handen van de twee Belgische grootbedrijven (de duopolie van Persgroep en Mediahuis met staatssteun van NL overheid) en de rest in de handen van het Scandinavische Sanoma en de “Nederlandse” overheid zelf. Dat biedt geen ruimte voor een onafhankelijk en vrij geluid.

En copyright op onderzoekspapers zijn in de handen van de ooit Nederlandse (nu Britse) uitgeverij Elsevier. En de copyright-claims van de advocaten van Elsevier kwamen dusdanig hard neer op Elsevier-hacker Aaron Swartz, dat die zich genoodzaakt zag zelfmoord te plegen. Nog los van het feit dat onderzoek tegenwoordig vooral ook veel onwaarheden creëert, zoals duidelijk werd bij de weg-gecensureerde TED talk van Rupert Sheldrake ‘Science Delusion’.

Het is duidelijk dat we hier een significant probleem hebben als het gaat over het geschreven woord. Alles is in handen van een klein aantal grote spelers die allen copyright afdwingen (tot de dood erop volgt) dan biedt dat de lezende en studerende mens weinig goeds.

 » Lees verder